Macomb, state judges concerned about public reporting of performance measures

Public reporting of performance measures of courts will happen despite concerns by the Macomb County judges and jurists across the state.

The Macomb Circuit Court bench was among a dozen groups or individuals who submitted public comments to the Michigan Supreme Court regarding its administrative proposal approved Wednesday as an order by the state Supreme Court.

Judges mostly support implementation of the measures but opposed or expressed skepticism about publicly reporting them due to concerns they will be misconstrued and result in unfair comparisons. They are worried the numbers will not accurately reflect operations because of external matters affecting cases.

“The only individuals interested in the results would be a lawyer planning to run against an incumbent, a young journalist seeking a headline or a disgruntled litigant seeking to file a JTC (Judicial Tenure Commission) complaint against a judge,” the 12-judge Macomb bench said in a document submitted to state officials, although it mentions only “certain” judges oppose the reporting proposal.

Advertisement

The bench’s concerns were similar to those mentioned in memos submitted by the Michigan Judges Association, Michigan Probate Judges Association, Michigan District Judges Association and other jurists statewide.

“Failure to explain outcomes or provide appropriate context for reports will undoubtedly lead to misunderstanding and misuse of information,” the MJA said in a memo signed by Judge Timothy Hicks, MJA president.

Marcia McBrien, spokeswoman for the State Court Administrative Office, said judges should be willing to work in a competitive environment the same way private-sector entities compete.

“We don’t think it should be a reason to not do performance measures,” McBrien said. “Don’t the taxpayers and the public have a right to know how their courts are performing?

“They need to know where they need to improve. These days, whether you’re a coffee shop, a hospital or a place to get your oil changed, everyone is doing performances measures. It comes down to how we can best improve performance. It comes down to courts being more efficient and making the best use of taxpayer dollars and rendering the best service possible.”

The measures, which will be developed gradually, will report on public access, timeliness and cost effectiveness. State officials will make “site visits” of courts, and users will be surveyed.

Performance measures will not evaluate judges’ decisions on cases. Judicial decisions are already made public, and many decisions are reviewed publicly by the state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

Macomb Chief Judge David Viviano noted that Macomb judges support the measures but some believe the results should be kept internal.

Viviano said he is not concerned about Macomb’s performance even though Macomb is among the busiest or perhaps the busiest court in the state based on cases per judge. Among their last comments in the memo, the Macomb judges remind the Supreme Court they should remind the public that the Macomb circuit “is short five judges.”

“I happen to think our courts and judges will measure up well, especially considering we’re understaffed,” Viviano said. “I’m not opposed to performance measures. It’s a basic management tool to seek if we’re making progress. As a general proposal I see this as a good thing. Some of the things we’re doing already.”

Courts already try to meet case-age and time-to-disposition standards set by the state, numbers that are mostly kept in-house, although some information can be gleaned from information publicly reported.

Some of the measures were modeled after “CourTools,” performance standards developed in 2005 by the National Center for State Courts.

McBrien said state court administrators and the justices have received a great deal of input from judges, most of it positive, that will be used in developing and approving the measures.

The Macomb judges provided three areas in which cases can be delayed by external forces — stays granted in cases by the trial court due to appellate issues, appeals of summary disposition motions and the backlog of test results from the Michigan State Crime Lab or state Center for Forensic Psychiatry in criminal cases.

The MJA listed several additional circumstances, such as a party filing for bankruptcy, change of attorney, military deployment of a party, illness of a party, witness or attorney, and absconding by a criminal defendant

About the Author

My beat is the courts of Macomb County and general assignment.
Read more of Jameson Cook's court coverage on his blog http://courthousedish.blogspot.com/ Reach the author at jamie.cook@macombdaily.com
or follow Jameson on Twitter: @jamesoncook.